Van Helsing (2004)

Director: Stephen Sommers

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Kate Beckinsale, Richard Roxburgh, David Wenham

Primary genre: Action

Secondary genre: Horror

Stephen Sommers, the man responsible for reviving successfully one of Universal’s classic monsters with the gargantuan success of The Mummy (1999) and its sequel, was given free rein to throw in all of the other nasty creatures from the studio’s library into a free-for-all motion picture.

Enter Van Helsing, a much more ambitious and expensive movie which pits Dracula, the Wolfman and Frankenstein's monster against Van Helsing, a Vatican-endorsed monster hunter to vanquish evil. This imposing (and ultra-rare for these days) likeable hero is a Victorian James Bond with gadgets. Sommers finds an interesting reason to tie together all these famous IPs giving us a more grandiose aspect of Dracula as opposed to the typical presentations we have seen count-less times on the big screen. However, he rarely pauses to breathe, thinking action sequences make up for compelling characters.

Equipped with the enthusiasm of a 13-year-old boy who slams his action figures cacophonously against each other and in awe of what computer effects can do, he wastes no time. His opening sequence is bombastic showcasing exquisite production values in an inspiring homage to the classics under a superb black-and-white cinematography. Dracula, Frankenstein, his monster, Igor and a land of torches tick every cliche of the horror cinema the film takes inspiration from with a relentless pace and Alan Silvestri’s roaring score. What follows, though, is a hectic succession of set pieces that get repetitive in their use of digi-doubles, which undermines the jaw-dropping production design of Allan Cameron.

Van Helsing was made at a time when Hollywood blockbusters tried to outdo each other after the release of Star Wars Episode I, The Matrix, and, of course, The Mummy. Victim of its own creative ambition, Van Helsing suffers from an excess of computer usage; people swing with cables as if gravity is a thing of the past while digital creatures of all sorts clash against real backdrops to an excruciating degree. Sommers commands the screen, his camera swirling from impossible places around vast sets and an impeccable cast, awarding occasionally Van Helsing some fantastic shots worthy of the price of admission alone. Yet, for all its whams and bangs, Van Helsing is hollow. The characters have no room to breathe nor do they develop, and the lack of emotional stakes (pun intended) grounds the engagement with the material at the optical level only. While his Mummy bore a legitimate creepy factor despite its numb PG-13 rating, here despite all the blood sucking and killing, the film is toothless leaning into more action-swashbuckling and less horror. A harder tone would have elevate it the way James Cameron did it in Aliens (1986).

Werewolves are such a nuisance during their first full moon, so hard to control.
— Count Dracula

The actors do their best (despite employing the most dodgy Romanian accents you can think of). Jackman is pretty cool fitting nicely into the period setting but his quest to reclaiming his past goes nowhere. Kate Beckinsale is surely stunning and while her familial story should have been the emotional heart of the flick, it is only superficially explored. Only Roxburgh comes close to imbuing his Dracula with some sort of a rock star charisma - black long hair and slick clothing, but his OTT acting and accent put him as the least threatening take failing to make an impact. Sommers clearly loves, though, capturing on camera his unique skills magnified by superb special effects - whether he is casually walking upside down, or transforming into a massive bat-man. His Brides fare worse; their constant screaming causing more irritability as opposed to oozing a sinister and seductive quality like in Francis Ford Coppola’s Dracula (1992).

Be that as it may, Van Helsing is saved by its intentions to entertain and in the current climate of action (and horror) filmmaking, it is a giant. Castles, lairs, dodgy forests, churches, labs, Romanian villages and a breathtaking masquerade ball in Budapest (full of all sorts of Cirque du Soleil-like artists - from contortionists to trapeze athletes, jugglers, fire performers) are brought to life under sensational production and costume design. Enhanced by its huge production values, pulse-pounding score and Jackman’s charismatic presence, it will keep you occupied for some time. At the end though, you will feel nothing like Dracula himself: no love, nor fear nor joy nor sorrow.

Overblown monster mashup

+Huge production values

+Relentless pacing

+Jackman is pretty cool

+Silvestri’s career high score

-Empty spectacle

-CGI overkill

-Subpar performances

-Digi doubles

-Not scary enough due to PG-13 rating

Previous
Previous

The Rundown (2003)

Next
Next

The Exorcist (1973)